As far as I'm concerned, this camera is for people that buy it with an 18-135 or 18-200, take some pics of their kids' football game then stick it on a shelf until they go on vacation where they stroll around dangling it off their neck taking the same pics one could take with a $300 p&s that fits in their pocket. *breath*

They will set it on full automatic and never really appreciate what modern DSLRs can do. Unfortunately this seems to represent a growing share of the DSLR market.

Anyone with any sense would save for a D80 over this camera any day. It has only 3 focus areas and only works with AFS lenses! No application in UW photography IMO.

Nikon should instead be spending their time getting that D3 line out and maybe some new lenses! (ones that aren't consumer level variable aperture superzooms!)

Yeah, I know the D40 and D40x doesn't have a drive motor in it. Finally Nikon got around to getting smart and putting the motor in the lenses....There will be continual migration to this engineering from Nikon IMHO.

As far as UW use, many shooters on a budget will shop for a low cost capable dSLR, and pick lenses that can still deliver great images. Not everyone needs a 10.5mm or even a 105mm VR to make them happy shooting UW

If someone absolutely NEEDS expensive glass, the 12-24mm and 17-55mm are AF-S lenses, right? Plus a low cost dSLR body means you can buy 2, or 3 or whatever.....

This may still be considered speculation but I believe Nikon is currently working on a 40mm AF-S lens to replace what the 60mm was on film. This will certainly be nice in restoring that angle of coverage!

The D40 is a nice camera for beginners, most people who buy it will not want to spend $3k on a housing system on top of the camera and lenses, so inexpensive support is the key. This will give avid amatuers more spending room on the whole picture and not just a $2500 housing body! Nikon is slowly building a larger AF-S colection and I imagine this is where the future will go.

The idea of having a 35/40mm AF-S Micro Nikkor would be great. 60/105 are a tad to long when you want to shoot something like a grouper and have more than a "head shot" with crisp details in average viz.

Sorry to bring back the old tread, I read something interesting and wanted to share a bit.About the D40x, yes, low end model, no build-in motor etc.

But, the story may not be as one-sided. 1st, it's cheap, including the kit-lens, it costs lower than $800... yes, we may need a AF-S 60mm later...but Nikon is driving these kinds of cameras in the future, not too worry.

Let's do some high light for the report....The result of the report is, at dim env (pls refer to the report about the range of iso numbers being selected), which is particularly imporant for UW photography, the new cameras are delievering better image quality (noise, dynamic range) than the old ones, e.g. D40x is doing better than D40 (D40x > D40), better than D50 (D40x > D40 > D50)... and so on, including D80, D200, D1x, D2x, D1H, D2x, D2H....i.e. D40x > D40 > D50 > D80 > D200 ...

I wouldn't buy a dSLR and housing now and hope that Nikon will get around to releasing a 60mm AF-S macro lense later. That takes more faith than I have. You could use the Nikon 105, but its harder to use and cost twice as much, besides being good only for really clear water. For wide angle, you have the Nikon 12-24 but it cost $900. You can't use the Tokina 12-24 because it is not AF-S. You might consider the Nikon 17-55/f2.8, but its $1200. People have been talking about the Sigma 17-70 (only $400), but its not AF-S. The Nikon 18-55 and 18-70 are tolerable but not particularly appropriate.

In the end, your might get a marginally better sensor, and you'll save a couple hundred on the body, but you'll pay MUCH more to get the glass that you need - or you'll have to give up auto-focus. I think buying the D40x is what my mom would call "penny wise and pound foolish".

David

Sorry to bring back the old tread, I read something interesting and wanted to share a bit.About the D40x, yes, low end model, no build-in motor etc.

But, the story may not be as one-sided. 1st, it's cheap, including the kit-lens, it costs lower than $800... yes, we may need a AF-S 60mm later...but Nikon is driving these kinds of cameras in the future, not too worry.

Let's do some high light for the report....The result of the report is, at dim env (pls refer to the report about the range of iso numbers being selected), which is particularly imporant for UW photography, the new cameras are delievering better image quality (noise, dynamic range) than the old ones, e.g. D40x is doing better than D40 (D40x > D40), better than D50 (D40x > D40 > D50)... and so on, including D80, D200, D1x, D2x, D1H, D2x, D2H....i.e. D40x > D40 > D50 > D80 > D200 ...What do you think?

I agree that the lack of a 60mm AIS macro is what's holding up this great little camera. I do have to think that with Nikon making a commitment to this type of camera replacing higher-end digicams, that more lenses are forthcoming. Sigma HSM lenses will work, btw, so if Nikon doesn't perhaps a third-party will.

Lots of W/A options, mid-range zooms.

Fantasea will have it's D40/40x housing out in 3-4 weeks, list is $1099, including a standard port that supports a few lenses. So a $2k 10MP system is obtainable (ok, without strobes ).

Maybe I shouldn't be too sure about the AF-S fixed focal length and macro, eh?
It might be Nikon strategy to restrict the lens available for the low end models, esp
when we see that the low end models now can have some 'marginal' adv with
the new sensors.
Mid, and low end models are supposed to change faster comparing to the high
end models and therefore we are going to see this happen again.

Do the 3rd parties have to gain permissions from Nikon?

From another point of view, D40x is competiting with 400D, if people like 400D
because it has more selection of lens...

This camera is REALLY small. Also it gets good reviews for it's image quality. I've been thinking of getting one as an on land backup for my D2X. It would be a very nice backpacking or kayaking camera with the 18-200. Not much bigger than a consumer digicam; but much better image quality. It will fit in a small bag.

I second that thought about it being really small. That makes it a good backup. As a primary for me, its too small. I thought the Canon 300/350/400 had too small of a grip. The D40(x) has a similarly small grip and is shorter such that my pinky doesn't have anywhere to go. I like the D80 grip best (which is what I have). For underwater, the size difference between the D40 and a larger camera won't make the system much smaller, overall, although it does help. Once you add arms, strobes, and maybe an 8" dome, you probably won't notice the size difference as much. You also probably won't notice the cost savings as much - once you have bought all of the other components of a complete kit.

David

This camera is REALLY small. Also it gets good reviews for it's image quality. I've been thinking of getting one as an on land backup for my D2X. It would be a very nice backpacking or kayaking camera with the 18-200. Not much bigger than a consumer digicam; but much better image quality. It will fit in a small bag.